Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691

DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3247-5

RESEARCH Open Access

Aggregation operators ofneutrosophic

linguistic numbers formultiple attribute group
decision making
JunYe*

*Correspondence: yehjun@
aliyun.com
Department ofElectrical
andInformation Engineering,
Shaoxing University, 508
Huancheng West Road,
Shaoxing312000, Zhejiang
Province, Peoples Republic
ofChina
Abstract
Based on the concept of neutrosophic linguistic numbers (NLNs) in symbolic neutro-
sophic theory presented by Smarandache in 2015, the paper firstly proposes basic
operational laws of NLNs and the expected value of a NLN to rank NLNs. Then, we
propose the NLN weighted arithmetic average (NLNWAA) and NLN weighted geomet-
ric average (NLNWGA) operators and discuss their properties. Further, we establish a
multiple attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) method by using the NLNWAA
and NLNWGA operators under NLN environment. Finally, an illustrative example on a
decision-making problem of manufacturing alternatives in the flexible manufacturing
system is given to show the application of the proposed MAGDM method.
Keywords: Neutrosophic linguistic number, Neutrosophic linguistic number weighted
arithmetic average (NLNWAA) operator, Neutrosophic linguistic number weighted
geometric average (NLNWGA) operator, Group decision making

Background
In decision theory, decision-making method is one of important research topics. Then
various decision-making methods has been proposed and applied widely to engineering,
economics, and management fields. However, in complex decision-making problems,
decision makers (DMs) may give the qualitative evaluation for attributes by linguistic
variables (LVs) due to the uncertainty of decision environment and difference of DMs
cultural and knowledge background. Hence, Zadeh (1975) firstly presented the LV con-
cept and its application in fuzzy reasoning. Later, linguistic decision analyses were intro-
duced to deal with decision-making problems with linguistic information (Herrera etal.
1996; Herrera and Herrera-Viedma 2000). Then, a linguistic hybrid arithmetic average
operator was used for multiple attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) problems
with linguistic information (Xu 2006a). Further, goal programming models were put
forward to handle multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) problems under lin-
guistic environment (Xu 2006b). Also, the uncertain linguistic ordered weighted aver-
aging (ULOWA) and uncertain linguistic hybrid aggregation (ULHA) operators were
presented for dealing with MAGDM problems with uncertain linguistic information
(Xu 2004). Some induced uncertain linguistic ordered weighted average (IULOWA)

2016 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 2 of 11

operators were further developed for MAGDM problems with uncertain linguistic infor-
mation (Xu 2006c).
However, incomplete, indeterminate, and inconsistent information often exists in real
life. To express this kind of information, Smarandache (1998, 2013, 2014) proposed the
concept of a neutrosophic number (NN), denoted by B=t+vI, which consists of its
determinate part t and its indeterminate part vI. Then, neutrosophic sets and NNs (Sma-
randache 1998, 2013, 2014) are two different branches in neutrosophic theory. Here, NN
can express incomplete, indeterminate and inconsistent information by the determinate
and indeterminate parts, which exists commonly in real life, while existing linguistic
information cannot express indeterminate and inconsistent information. Since NN can
effectively express incomplete and indeterminate information, Ye (2015) developed a
bidirectional projection method for MAGDM problems with NNs. Ye (2016) proposed a
MAGDM method with NNs, including a de-neutrosophication process and a possibility
degree ranking method for NNs. Kong etal. (2015) presented a cosine similarity meas-
ure between NNs and applied it to the misfire fault diagnosis of gasoline engines.
Because of the ambiguity of peoples thinking about the complex objective things in
the real world, linguistic evaluation in complex decision-making problems may easily
express and better deal with the incomplete and indeterminate information than numer-
ical evaluation. However, existing linguistic variables cannot express indeterminate and
inconsistent information, hence one needs to introduce a expression form of indeter-
minate linguistic information to overcome the difficulty of existing linguistic expression
for indeterminate information. Recently, Smarandache introduced the concept of a neu-
trosophic linguistic number (NLN) expressed by lt+vI in symbolic neutrosophic theory
(Smarandache 2015), where t+vI is NN. Unfortunately, there are not operational laws
of NLNs and their application till now. To study these problems, the objects of this paper
are: (1) to define basic operational laws of NLNs and the expected value of a NLN for
ranking NLNs, (2) to propose the NLN weighted arithmetic average (NLNWAA) and
NLN weighted geometric average (NLNWGA) operators and to discuss their properties,
and (3) to establish a MAGDM method based on the NLNWAA and NLNWGA opera-
tors under NLN environment. The main advantages of the proposed method are able to
express and handle indeterminate linguistic information in linguistic decision-making
environments and extend the existing NN decision-making methods (Ye 2015, 2016) to
NLN decision-making method.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section Preliminaries of LSs,
NNs and NLNs briefly reviews the basic concepts of LVs, linguistic sets (LSs), NNs, and
NLNs. The operational laws of NLNs and the expected value of a NLN are defined in
Operational laws and expected value of NLNs section. Weighted aggregation opera-
tors for NLNs section develops NLNWAA and NLNWGA operators of NLNs and
discusses their properties. In MAGDM method using the NLNWAA and NLNWGA
operators section, a MAGDM method based on the NLNWAA and NLNWGA opera-
tors is developed under NLN environment. In Illustrative example section shows the
application of the presented method. Conclusions and future research are contained in
Conclusion section.
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 3 of 11

Preliminaries ofLSs, NNs andNLNs

The concepts ofLV andLS
Zadeh (1975) firstly proposed the concept of LV in 1975.
Let L={L0, L1, , Ls1} be a finitely linguistic term set with cardinality s, where Li in
the linguistic term set L is a LV and s is an odd value. For instance, taking s=7, one can
specify a LS L={L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6}={extremely poor, very poor, poor, medium,
good, very good, extremely good}.
Then, any two LVs Li and Lj in a LS L should satisfy the following properties (Herrera
etal. 1996; Herrera and Herrera-Viedma 2000):

1. Ordering: Li Lj if i j;
2. Negation operator: Neg(Li)=Ls1i;
3. Maximum operator: Max(Li, Lj)=Li if i>j;
4. Minimum operator: Min(Li, Lj)=Lj if i>j.

To minimize the linguistic information loss in the operational process, the discrete
LS L={L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6} can be generalized to a continuous LS L = {L | R},
which satisfied the above-mentioned characteristics.
For any two LVs Li and Lj for Li , Lj L, Xu (2006a, b) defined the following operational
laws:

1. Li = Li , 0;

2. Li + Lj = Li+j ;

3. Li Lj = Lij ;

4. Li /Lj = Li/j ;

5. (Li ) = Li , 0.

Some concepts ofNNs andNLNs

NN proposed by Smarandache (1998, 2013, 2014) consists of the determinate part t and
the indeterminate part vI, which is denoted by B=t+vI, where t and v are real num-
bers, and I is indeterminacy, such that In=I for n>0, 0I=0, and bI/nI=undefini-
tion for any real number n.
For example, assume that there is a NN B=3+2I. If I[0, 0.3], it is equivalent to
B[3, 3.6] for sure B3, this means that its determinate part is 3 and its indetermi-
nate part is 2I for the indeterminacy I[0, 0.3] and the possibility for the number B is
within the interval [3, 3.6].
Let B1=t1+v1I and B2=t2+v2I be two NNs for t1, v1, t2, v2R (all real numbers).
The operational relationship for B1 and B2 is as follows (Smarandache 1998, 2013, 2014):

1. B1+B2=t1+t2+(v1+v2)I;
2. B1B2=t1t2+(v1v2)I;
3. B1B2=t1t2+(t1v2+v1t2+v1v2)I;
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 4 of 11

4. B21=(t1+v1I)2=t21+((t1+v1)2t21)I;
t2 v1 t1 v2
5. BB12 = tt12 +v 1I t1
+v2 I = t2 + t2 (t2 +v2 ) I for t20 and t2v2;

t1 ( t1 + t1 + v1 )I
t (t t + v )I



1 1 1 1
6. B1 = t1 + v1 I = .

t1 + ( t1 + t1 + v1 )I



t1 + ( t1 t1 + v1 )I
Let B=t+vI be a NN. If t, v0, then B is called the positive NN.
In the following, all NNs are considered as positive and are called NNs for short,
unless they are stated.
In 2015, Smarandache introduced the concept of NLN expressed by lt+vI in symbolic
neutrosophic theory (Smarandache 2015), where t+vI is NN, t and v are real numbers,
and I is indeterminacy.

Operational laws andexpected value ofNLNs

In this section, we give the operational laws of NLNs and the expected value of a NLN
for ranking NLNs.

Definition 1 Assume that l1 = lt1 +v1 I and l2 = lt2 +v2 I are two NLNs, then the opera-
tional laws are defined as follows:

1. l1 + l2 = lt1 +t2 +(v1 +v2 )I ;

2. l1 l2 = lt1 t2 +(v1 v2 )I ;

3. l1 l2 = lt1 t2 +(t1 v2 +t2 v1 +v1 v2 )I ;

4. l1 = l t1 + t2 v1 t1 v2 I for t20 and t2v2;

l2 t2 t2 (t2 +v2 )

5. l1 = lt1 +v1 I for 0;

6. l1 = lt +[(t1 +v1 ) t ]I for 0.
1 1

Clearly, the above operational results are still NLNs.

Then, we define an expected value of a NLN, which is an important index to rank
NLNs in the following decision-making problems.

Definition 2Let L={l0, l1, , ls1} be a finitely linguistic term set with cardinality s
and l = lt+vI for L be a NLN and I[inf I, sup I]. Then, an expected value of the NLN l
can be represented as

(t + v inf I) + (t + v sup I)
E(l) = . (1)
2(s 1)

Obviously, the bigger the value of E(l ) is, the greater the corresponding NLN l is.
Based on Definition 2, a ranking method for NLNs can be given below.

Definition 3Let l1 and l2 be two NLNs. Then, their ranking can be defined as follows:
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 5 of 11

1. If E(l1)>E(l2), then l1l2;

2. If E(l1)=E(l2), then l1=l2.

Example 1Let l1=l3+2I and l2=l2+3I be two NLNs for I[0.1, 0.3] and the cardinal-
ity of linguistic term sets L be s=7. Then, in this case the ranking order between l1 and
l2 is given as follows:

According to Eq.(1) we have E(l1)=0.5667>E(l2)=0.4333, Hence, l1l2.

Weighted aggregation operators forNLNs

Weighted aggregation operator is an important tool for information aggregation, which
can capture the expressed interrelationship of the individual arguments. Based on the
operational laws in Definition 1, this section proposes the NLNWAA and NLNWGA
operators to aggregate NLNs, which are usually utilized in decision-making problems.

NLNWAA operator

Definition 4Let lj (j=1, 2, , n) be a collection of NLNs. The NLNWAA operator is

defined by

  n
NLNWAA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln = wj lj , (2)
j=1

n
where wj is the weight of lj (j=1, 2, , n) with wj[0, 1] and j=1 wj = 1.

Theorem1Let lj j = 1, 2, . . . , n be a collection of NLNs. Then by Eq.(2) and the oper-

 

ational laws in Definition 1, we have the following aggregation formula:

 
NLNWAA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln = lnj=1 wj tj +I nj=1 wj vj , (3)

where wj is the weight of lj j = 1, 2, . . . , n , satisfying wj [0, 1] and nj=1 wj = 1.

  

Obviously, the proof of Eq.(3) can be easily obtained according to the operational laws
in Definition 1. Hence, its proof is omitted here.
Especially if wj = 1/n for j = 1, 2, . . . , n, then the NLNWAA operator is reduced to a
NLN arithmetic average operator.
Then, the NLNWAA operator shows the following properties:

1. Idempotency:  Let lj (j =1, 2, . . . , n) be a collection of NLNs. Then there

is NLNWAA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln = l if lj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) is equal, i.e., lj = l for
j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
2. Monotonicity:  Let lj (j= 1, 2, . . . , n) be a collection
 of NLNs. Then there is
NLNWAA l1 , l2 , , ln NLNWAA l1 , l2 , , ln if lj lj for j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 6 of 11

3. Boundedness: Let lj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) be a collection of NLNs and

lmin = min(l1 , l2 , . . . , ln ) and lmax = max(l1 , l2 , . . . , ln ) for j = 1, 2, . . . , n. Then there
 
is lmin NLNWAA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln lmax .

Since the above properties are obvious, their proofs are omitted here.

NLNWGA operator

Definition 5Let lj (j=1, 2, , n) be a collection of NLNs. Then the NLNWGA opera-

tor is defined as

n
wj
  
NLNWGA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln = lj , (4)
j=1

n
where wj is the weight of lj (j=1, 2, , n), satisfying wj[0, 1] and j=1 wj = 1.

Theorem2 Let lj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) be a collection of NLNs. by Eq.(4) and the operational

laws in Definition 1, we have the following aggregation formula:

NLNWGA(l1 , l2 , . . . , ln ) = ln wj n wj n wj  , (5)

j=1 tj + j=1 (tj +vj ) j=1 tj I

n
where wj is the weight of lj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n), satisfying wj [0, 1] and j=1 wj = 1.

Proof The proof of Eq.(5) can be given by mathematical induction.

1. If n=2, then

l1w1 l2w2 = l w1  w
  w  w
 
t1 + (t1 +v1 )w1 t1 1 I t2 2 + (t2 +v2 )w2 t2 2 I

= l w1 w w
 w
 w
 w
  w
 w

t1 t2 2 +t1 1 (t2 +v2 )w2 t2 2 I+t2 2 (t1 +v1 )w1 t1 1 I+ (t2 +v2 )w2 t2 2 (t1 +v1 )w1 t1 1 I

= l w1 w
w w w
 w w w
  w w w w

t1 t2 2 + t1 1 (t2 +v2 )w2 t1 1 t2 2 I+ t2 2 (t1 +v1 )w1 t2 2 t1 1 I+ (t2 +v2 )w2 (t1 +v1 )w1 t2 2 (t1 +v1 )w1 t1 1 (t2 +v2 )w2 +t1 1 t2 2 I

= l w1  .
w w w
(6)

t1 t2 2 + (t2 +v2 )w2 (t1 +v1 )w1 t1 1 t2 2 I

2. If n=k, by using Eq.(5), we obtain

NLNWGA(l1 , l2 , . . . , lk ) = lk wj 
k wj k wj  . (7)
j=1 tj + j=1 (tj +vj ) j=1 tj I

3. If n=k+1, by using Eqs.(6) and (7), we obtain

NLNWGA(l1 , l2 , . . . , lk+1 )
= lk wj k w wj  wk+1 wk+1 
(tj +vj ) j kj=1 tj I tk+1 +(tk+1 +vk+1 )wk+1 tk+1

j=1 tj + j=1 I

= lk wj wj+1 k wj  wk+1  wk+1 k w wj   wk+1 k wj k wj 

(tk+1 +vk+1 )wk+1 tk+1 (tj +vj ) j kj=1 tj I+ (tk+1 +vk+1 )wk+1 tk+1

j=1 tj tk+1 + j=1 tj I+tk+1 + j=1 j=1 (tj +vj ) j=1 tj I

= lk+1 wj k+1 w k+1 wj  .

j=1 tj + j=1 (tj +vj ) j j=1 tj I
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 7 of 11

Therefore, according to the above results, we have Eq.(5) for any n. This completes the
proof.

Especially when wj=1/n for j=1, 2, , n, the NLNWGA operator is reduced to a NLN
geometric average operator.
Then, the NLNWGA operator also shows the following properties:

1. Idempotency:
 Let lj (j= 1, 2, , n) be a collection of NLNs. Then there is
NLNWGA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln = l if lj (j=1, 2, , n) is equal, i.e., lj=l for j=1, 2, , n.
 Let lj (j = 1, 2, , n)
2. Monotonicity:  be a collection  of NLNs. Then there is
NLNWGA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln NLNWGA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln if lj lj for j=1, 2, , n.

3. Boundedness: Let lj (j = 1, 2, , n) be a collection of NLNs and

lmin = min(l1 , l2 , .. . , ln ) and lmax
 = max(l1 , l2 , . . . , ln ) for j=1, 2, , n, then there is
lmin NLNWGA l1 , l2 , . . . , ln lmax.
Since the above properties are obvious, their proofs are omitted here.

MAGDM method using the NLNWAA andNLNWGA operators

In this section, we present a handling method for MAGDM problems by using the
NLNWAA and NLNWGA operators.
For a MAGDM problem with NLNs, let U={u1, u2, , um} be a discrete set of alter-
natives, G={g1, g2, , gn} be a set of attributes, and E={e1, e2, , ep} be a set of DMs.
If the kth (k=1, 2,, p) DM provides the evaluation of the alternative ui (i=1, 2, ,
m) on the attribute gj (j = 1, 2,, n) under some linguistic term set, such as L = {L0:
extremely poor, L1: very poor, L2: poor, L3: medium, L4: good, L5: very good, L6: extremely
good}, the evaluation value with indeterminacy I can be represented by the form of a
NLN lijk = lt k +vk I for tijk , vijk R (k=1, 2,, p; j=1, 2,, n; i=1, 2,, m). Therefore, we
ij ij
can obtain the kth NLN decision matrix Dk:

k k k

l11 l12 l1n


k k k

l21 l22 l2n

Dk = .

.. .. .. ..

. . . .


k k k
lm1 lm2 lmn

If the weight vector of attributes is W = (w1, w2, , wn) satisfying wj 0 and

n
wj = 1, and the weight vector of DMs is Q=(q1, q2,, qp) satisfying qk 0 and
j=1
p
k=1 qk = 1. Then, the steps of the MADM problem are described as follows:

Step 1 According to the decision matrix Dk (k=1, 2, , p) provided by DMs, by the fol-
lowing formula:
 
p
lij = NLNWAA lij1 , lij2 , . . . , lij = lp k p k , (8)
k=1 qk tij +I k=1 qk vij
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 8 of 11

we can get a collective NLN decision matrix:

l11 l12 l1n
l21 l22 l2n
D= .

.. .. .. ..
. . . .
lm1 lm2 lmn

Step 2 The individual overall NLN li for ui (i=1, 2, , m) is calculated by the following
aggregation formula:
 
li = NLNWAA li1 , li2 , . . . , lin = lnj=1 wj tij +I nj=1 wj vij , (9)

or

li = NLNWGA(li1 , li2 , . . . , lin ) = ln wj n wj n wj  . (10)

j=1 tij + j=1 (tij +vij ) j=1 tij I

Step 3 We introduce a de-neutrosophication process in the decision-making problem

based on I[inf I, sup I][1, 1]. A NLN li (i=1, 2, , m) can be transformed to an
interval NLN, which is equivalent to li = lti +vi I l[ti +vi inf I,ti +vi sup I]. Then, the expected
value of E(li) (i=1, 2, , m) is calculated by applying Eq.(1).
Step 4 The alternatives are ranked according to the values of E(li) (i=1, 2, , m) by
the ranking method in Definition 3, and then the best one(s) can be selected according
to the largest expected value of E(li).
Step 5 End.

Illustrative example
In this section, an illustrative example for a MAGDM problem with NLNs is provided to
demonstrate the applications of the proposed decision-making method in realistic scenarios.
There is a decision-making problem of manufacturing alternatives in the flexible man-
ufacturing system. Suppose a set of four alternatives for the flexible manufacturing sys-
tem is U = {u1, u2, u3, u4}. Then, a decision is made according to the three attributes:
(1) g1 is the improvement of manufacturing quality; (2) g2 is the market response; (3) g3
is the manufacturing cost. The four possible alternatives on the three attributes are to
be evaluated by a group of three DMs corresponding to the linguistic term set L={L0:
extremely poor, L1: very poor, L2: poor, L3: medium, L4: good, L5: very good, L6: extremely
good}, where DMs may contain the linguistic evaluation with indeterminacy I expressed
by NLNs according to the linguistic term set. Assume that the weight vector of the three
attributes is W=(0.2, 0.5, 0.3) and the weight vector of the three DMs is Q=(0.3, 0.36,
0.34).
Then, the three DMs are invited to make judgments and to give the linguistic evalua-
tion with indeterminacy I expressed by NLNs according to the linguistic term set. Thus,
the evaluation results of an alternative ui (i=1, 2, 3, 4) on an attribute gj (j=1, 2, 3) are
given as the following three NLN decision matrices:
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 9 of 11

l5 l4+I l3+I l4+I l5 l3 l5+I l4 l3+I
l 4 l5 l4+I l5 l4 l3+I l 4+I l4 l3
D1 = D2 = D3 =

, , .
l4+I l4+I l4 l5 l4+I l4 l5 l5 l4+I
l5 l4+I l4 l4+I l5 l5+I l4 l4+I l4

Whereas, we use the developed approach to rank the alternatives and to select the most
desirable one(s), which can be described as the following steps:
Step 1 According to the above three decision matrices of Dk (k=1, 2, 3), the collective
NLN decision matrix is obtained by applying Eq.(8) as follows:

l4.64+0.7I l4.36+0.3I l3+0.64I

l4.36+0.34I l4.3 l3.3+0.66I
D= .
l4.7+0.3I l4.34+0.66I l4+0.34I
l4.3+0.36I l4.36+0.64I l4.36+0.36I

Step 2 By applying Eq.(9), we can obtain the individual overall NLNs of li for ui (i=1,
2, 3, 4):

l1 = l4.008+0.482I , l2 = l4.012+0.266I , l3 = l4.31+0.492I , and l4 = l4.348+0.5I

Step 3 For the de-neutrosophication in the decision-making problem, assume that

the infimum of I is taken as inf I=0 and the supremum of I is taken as sup I=0.1 to
consider the minimum and maximum values for indeterminacy I, which are determined
by DMs preference or requirements in real situations. Thus by applying Eq.(1), we can
obtain the expected values of E(li) (i=1, 2, 3, 4):

E(l1 ) = 0.672, E(l2 ) = 0.6709, E(l3 ) = 0.7224, and E(l4 ) = 0.7288.

Step 4 Since E(l4) > E(l3) > E(l1) > E(l2), the ranking of four alternatives is
u4u3u1u2. Therefore, we can see that the alternative u4 is the best choice among
all the alternatives.
Or we can also utilize the NLNWGA operator as the following computational steps:
Step 1 It is the same result as Step 1.
Step 2 By applying Eq.(9), we can obtain the individual overall NLNs of li for ui (i=1,
2, 3, 4):

l1 = l3.9462+0.5004I , l2 = l3.9828+0.2876I , l3 = l4.3031+0.489I , and l4 = l4.3479+0.4976I

Step 3 By applying Eq.(1) for I[0, 0.1], we can obtain the expected values of E(li)
(i=1, 2, 3, 4):

E(l1 ) = 0.6619, E(l2 ) = 0.6662, E(l3 ) = 0.7213, and E(l4 ) = 0.7288.

Step 4 Since E(l4) > E(l3) > E(l2) > E(l1), the ranking of four alternatives is
u4u3u2u1. Therefore, we can see that the alternative u4 is the best choice among
all the alternatives.
Similarly, if one considers different ranges of the indeterminate degree for I in NLNs,
by Steps 3 and 4 or Steps 3 and 4, one can obtain different results, as shown in Tables1
and 2.
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 10 of 11

For the decision results based on the NLNWAA operator in Table1, we can see that the
ranking orders of the four alternatives are u4u3u2u1 from I[0.7, 0] to I=0 and
u4u3u1u2 from I[0, 0.1] to I[0, 0.7], and then the best alternative is u4. For the
decision results based on the NLNWGA operator in Table2, we can see that the ranking
orders of the four alternatives are u4u3u2u1 from I[0.7, 0] to I[0, 0.3] and
u4u3u1u2 from I[0, 0.5] to I[0, 0.7], and then the best alternative is also u4.
The illustrative example demonstrates that different ranges of indeterminate degrees for
I in NLNs result in different ranking orders of alternatives. Then, the MAGDM method
proposed in this paper can deal with the decision-making problems with NLN information
(indeterminate linguistic information). If we do not consider the indeterminacy I in NLNs
(i.e., I=0), then this MAGDM method reduces to classical one with crisp linguistic values.
Furthermore, since the indeterminate linguistic part lvi I in NLNs can affect the rank-
ing order of alternatives in the MAGDM problem, the method proposed in this paper
can provide more general and more flexible selecting way for DMs when the indeter-
minate degree for I in NLNs is assigned different ranges in de-neutrosophication pro-
cess. Therefore, the DMs can select some ranges of indeterminate degrees for I in NLNs
according to their preference or real requirements and have flexibility in real decision-
making problems.

Table1 Decision results based onthe NLNWAA operator bychoosing different indetermi-
nate ranges forI inNLNs
I NLNWAA Ranking

I[0.7, 0] E( l1)=0.6399, E( l2)=0.6532, E( l3)=0.6896, E( l4)=0.6955 u4u3u2u1

I[0.5, 0] E( l1)=0.6479, E( l2)=0.6576, E( l3)=0.6978, E( l4)=0.7038 u4u3u2u1
I[0.3, 0] E( l1)=0.6559, E( l2)=0.6620, E( l3)=0.7060, E( l4)=0.7122 u4u3u2u1
I[0.1, 0] E( l1)=0.6640, E( l2)=0.6665, E( l3)=0.7142, E( l4)=0.7205 u4u3u2u1
I=0 E( l1)=0.6680, E( l2)=0.6687, E( l3)=0.7183, E( l4)=0.7247 u4u3u2u1
I[0, 0.1] E( l1)=0.6720, E( l2)=0.6709, E( l3)=0.7224, E( l4)=0.7288 u4u3u1u2
I[0, 0.3] E( l1)=0.6801, E( l2)=0.6753, E( l3)=0.7306, E( l4)=0.7372 u4u3u1u2
I[0, 0.5] E( l1)=0.6881, E( l2)=0.6797, E( l3)=0.7388, E( l4)=0.7455 u4u3u1u2
I[0, 0.7] E( l1)=0.6961, E( l2)=0.6842, E( l3)=0.7470, E( l4)=0.7538 u4u3u1u2

Table2 Decision results based onthe NLNWGA operator bychoosing different indetermi-
nate ranges forI inNLNs
I NLNWGA Ranking

I[0.7, 0] E( l1)=0.6285, E( l2)=0.6470, E( l3)=0.6887, E( l4)=0.6956 u4u3u2u1

I[0.5, 0] E( l1)=0.6369, E( l2)=0.6518, E( l3)=0.6968, E( l4)=0.7039 u4u3u2u1
I[0.3, 0] E( l1)=0.6452, E( l2)=0.6566, E( l3)=0.7050, E( l4)=0.7122 u4u3u2u1
I[0.1, 0] E( l1)=0.6535, E( l2)=0.6614, E( l3)=0.7131, E( l4)=0.7205 u4u3u2u1
I=0 E( l1)=0.6577, E( l2)=0.6638, E( l3)=0.7172, E( l4)=0.7247 u4u3u2u1
I[0, 0.1] E( l1)=0.6619, E( l2)=0.6662, E( l3)=0.7213, E( l4)=0.7288 u4u3u2u1
I[0, 0.3] E( l1)=0.6702, E( l2)=0.6710, E( l3)=0.7294, E( l4)=0.7371 u4u3u2u1
I[0, 0.5] E( l1)=0.6786, E( l2)=0.6758, E( l3)=0.7376, E( l4)=0.7454 u4u3u1u2
I[0, 0.7] E( l1)=0.6869, E( l2)=0.6806, E( l3)=0.7457, E( l4)=0.7537 u4u3u1u2
Ye SpringerPlus (2016)5:1691 Page 11 of 11

Obviously, the main advantage of the proposed method is able to express and handle
indeterminate linguistic information in linguistic decision-making environments since
the existing decision-making methods (Herrera etal. 1996; Herrera and Herrera-Viedma
2000; Xu 2006a, b; Ye 2015, 2016) cannot do it.

Conclusion
This paper defined the operational laws of NLNs and the expected value of NLNs for
ranking NLNs. Then, we proposed the NLNWAA and NLNWGA operators to aggre-
gate NLN information and discussed their properties. Furthermore, a MAGDM method
based on the NLNWAA and NLNWGA operators was established in NLN setting.
Finally, an illustrative example demonstrated the application of the presented method.
The proposed MAGDM method with NLNs is more suitable for real science and engi-
neering applications because it easily express and handle the indeterminate linguistic
information which exists commonly in real life. In the future research, we shall further
develop other aggregation operators of NLNs, such as ordered weighted aggregation
operators and prioritized weighted aggregation operators of NLNs, and apply them to
assignment and resource allocation problems where the indeterminate information of
the problems is specified uncertainly.

Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

Received: 7 June 2016 Accepted: 6 September 2016

References
Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic
information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):6782
Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay L (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assess-
ments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79(1):7387
Kong L, Wu Y, Ye J (2015) Misfire fault diagnosis method of gasoline engines using the cosine similarity measure of neu-
trosophic numbers. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 8:4346
Smarandache F (1998) Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth
Smarandache F (2013) Introduction to neutrosophic measure, neutrosophic integral, and neutrosophic probability.
Sitech and Education Publisher, Craiova-Columbus
Smarandache F (2014) Introduction to neutrosophic statistics. Sitech and Education Publishing, Craiova-Columbus
Smarandache F (2015) Symbolic neutrosophic theory. EuropaNova asbl, Bruxelles
Xu ZS (2004) Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making
under uncertain linguistic environment. Inf Sci 168:171184
Xu ZS (2006a) A note on linguistic hybrid arithmetic averaging operator in multiple attribute group decision making with
linguistic information. Group Decis Negot 15(6):593604
Xu ZS (2006b) Goal programming models for multiple attribute decision making under linguistic setting. J Manag Sci
China 9(2):917
Xu ZS (2006c) Induced uncertain linguistic OWA operators applied to group decision making. Inf Fusion 7:231238
Ye J (2015) Bidirectional projection method for multiple attribute group decision making with neutrosophic numbers.
Neural Comput Appl. doi:10.1007/s00521-015-2123-5
Ye J (2016) Multiple-attribute group decision-making method under a neutrosophic number environment. J Intell Syst
25(3):377386
Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning Part I. Inf Sci
8(3):199249